ATER is indeed surprising. The idea that some unusual surface condition in electrodes could make a reaction happen that normally does not.... Sounds very strange does it not? A bit like LENR. But of course it is less strange than LENR because there are fewer unusual characteristics to explain away.
I think that this is commonly referred to as 'catalysis'.
From geometric perspective there exists interesting analogy in catalytic behavior of palladium for chemical and for nuclear reactions. The palladium often catalyses hydrogenations because it strongly absorbs hydrogen, thus transferring the reaction running in volume phase (3D) into a reaction running at surface (2D). It's evident, if we would convert the same reaction to 1D, it would run even faster - and this is just what the palladium does for nuclear reactions.
If we look at the metal lattice, their long lines of atoms could behave like the pistons - especially these ones along boundaries of crystal grains and similar defects. In addition, the energy of collisions along lines of colliding balls has a tendency to multiply - it's nicely demonstrated for example here. Therefore locally the energy of these attenuated low-dimensional collisions can reach the levels required for fusion.
This catalytic effect is visible in composition of products of cold fusion, which strongly favors the most stable helium, whereas during plasma fusion many neutrons and tritium is usually formed. These products also waste the energy of reaction, not to say they're doing everything radioactive. But the cold fusion doesn't release any neutrons which indicates, it favors the formation of harmless products in similar way, like the chemical catalysts. In similar way, the palladium in cars is used for promote complete burning of fuel into carbon dioxide.
Edit: we discussed it extensively here 1, 2 - just because this forum lacks efficient full-text search and it behaves like the pile of manure covering the former insights with laeyers of another discussion, so we are pre-destined to reinvent the wheel again and again.
ATER is indeed surprising. The idea that some unusual surface condition in electrodes could make a reaction happen that normally does not.... Sounds very strange does it not? A bit like LENR. But of course it is less strange than LENR because there are fewer unusual characteristics to explain away.
I think that this is commonly referred to as 'catalysis'.
Catalysis? Maybe sort of... Yes, ATER is the unexpected happening. The CFers were fixated on the idea that recombination in the electrolyte was limited to <2% because they understood an electrochemical recombination that occurred using dissolved oxygen that was limited to about that much. There were several early publications that either expressed this directly or incorporated it as an assumption. So when I proposed run-of-the-mill normal recombination occurring *below the surface of the electrolyte at the electrode itself* people defaulted to "that can't be more than 2%" (Storms did this, Fleishmann did this, Szpak did this). But if recombination is only electrochemical, then people have left out all the operational details as to how they run their recombination catalysts, what voltage, what current.... Of course that's silly, hydrogen and oxygen combine on metal surfaces without needing electric current to drive them to do so. The only neat thing that is happening in ATER is that now it is happening under a liquid covering, which does require couple of special conditions.
Eric talked about using a bubbler. That is a possibility but I think a difficult one because of how the ATER process would have to work. The hydrogen bubbles do not impinge on the electrode and stick, and then an oxygen bubble comes along and combines with it. Instead the hydrogen bubble grows on the electrode surface. Normally it just reaches some critical size where it then detaches and floats to the liquid surface. Impinging oxygen bubbles usually don't stick, or combine, under the liquid surface. They too usually float up to the surface. But the trick with ATER seems to be that the 'special active state' alters this process such that the hydrogen bubbles are harder to detach and/or the oxygen bubbles now either combine easier with H2 bubbles or adhere to the electrode surface and migrate over to an H2 bubble to combine. Then in the combined bubble, the metal surface that has no liquid covering because as the H2 bubble grew it pushed the liquid away 'catalyzes' the recombination and poof! you have a mini-explosion. The interesting physical chemistry is this alteration of adhesion properties. At least that is my speculation as to how it works.
So back to a bubbler. Now you have to add an additional step in - the hydrogen bubble must adhere to the metal surface and push the electrolyte away. Then you can pick up with the speculative process I describe above. In this experimental setup, the electrode must be pre-prepared with a stable 'Special Active State' on some portion of its surface, which in real life seems quite hard to form and keep. I suspect the bubbler approach would add an unnecessary layer of difficulty. I really think this whole issue has been well addressed by the infamous Szpak ir video, which shows the SAS start up and grow to about 1/3 of the total electrode surface area, and then fade away after a short operating period. It's just that Szpak, et al, claimed this showed mini-'nuclear' explosions instead or more mundane chemical ones.
In the end reproducibility will answer the question. But it will be very difficult to attain reproducibility (which implies control of all relevant variables) when the experimentation is driven by the idea that the FPHE arises from a nuclear process if that is not true. In fact, the failure to reach a reproducible condition after many years of effort is a weak-to-moderate argument against the supposed nuclear nature.
If you could intentionally get recombination to occur at the cathode, e.g., maybe with a bubbler or something, would you get something that looks like excess heat as seen in LENR electrochemical results? If yes, that is indeed interesting. If no, then our ATER is not a very promising example of a surprising result. In that case it would be both surprising and not relevant.
But back to the (inescapably) general point: a number of LENR electrochemists are of the impression that X that Kirk is proposing, where X is some combination of suggestions, has not been seen before. Are they wrong? If they are not wrong, then it seems to me that there needs to be some empirical vetting of X. There has to be some bar for suggestions to cross over before you start worrying about them.
If it is mere restatements of existing electrochemical knowledge that have gotten all of the LENR electrochemists rolling their eyes, I encourage you to double-check your conclusion with an academic electrochemist you know or one at a university near where you live and report back what you learn.
LENR electrochemists have some issues with doing 'good' science. The recent revelation from Melvin Miles points this up. In 2010 he signed off on the 'fact' that I was 'wrong' because the 'random Shanahan CCSH' was clearly wrong. In 2017 he admitted he had never read anything I had written. So how was he legitimately able to sign off in 2010? He wasn't. What he was doing was accepting what Ed Storms said without question. This fit the scuttlebutt that was floating around at the time, that the 2010 rebuttal was written in pieces by several authors and Marwan edited them together.
Ed and I had a *very* long series of emails exchanged before, during, and after the publication of my 2002 paper. In the end, Ed was able to correctly repeat my theses, i.e. he showed he understood them. When I then asked him how he could just ignore CCS/ATER (using today's acronym) he answered 'Because I want to.' That's when I gave up. If Ed simply chooses to ignore my work because he doesn't like it, what can I do? Unfortunately, Ed holds a position of influence with the CF community, and obviously people are simply following his lead. This also explains why Peter Hagelstein was unable to answer a question from the audience during the first session of his 2015 MIT Cold Fusion course regarding my work. He had to go look up the core idea of my work that night and then report back on it the next day. Does one do that with something one has seriously thought over, to the point of concluding it is error-laden?
If you ask a non-LENR electrochemist about the F&P experiments, the first thing they comment on is why the cell is not divided. This is how most electrochemistry is done, with the electrodes physically isolated from each other. (Electrical connection being maintained by a 'salt bridge'.) Richard Oriani actually looked into this. In one of his papers, he described putting plastic cups around the electrodes with separate gas vent lines for the O2 and H2. He saw no excess heat signals that way. But when he removed the cups (removing one vent line in the process), and reran the same electrodes, he then saw excess heat signals. This is another tidbit to fold into understanding where the excess heat signal comes from - mixed H2/O2 bubbles are required.
So when LENR electrochemists roll their eyes at me, I roll mine right back...
(And yes, I agree, ATER needs to be tested...just not by me for reasons given before.)
If your theory is derived inductively then by the rules of induction there is a strong possibility your theory is flat wrong. Like I said, most scientists don't know how to reason inductively.
Let's go through this once more, since Zeph was right when he mentioned that responses get lost in the forum. If I give you a measurement device, and tell you that to get the right answer from it you must take the displayed number, multiply it by 3 and add 0.7, because that's what the NIST-traceable calibration equation is, and then you use the device and take the displayed number and multiply it by 5 and add 1800 to it, will you be getting the correct answer? Hint: The answer is *NO* (shouting intended).
What you have done is induce an error by shifting the calibration constants. This is math. Nothing else.
Any calibration equation can have the problem of becoming invalid because the system has changed. Many times this is just due to aging processes for example. The CCS that may arise from the initiation and cessation of ATER in an F&P-type electrochemical cell is just a specific example of a generic problem. Thus by arguing from the specific (Ed Storms' mass flow calorimetric data shows possible CCS effects) to the generic (any calibration equation can show CCS effects) I reason inductively.
Note that I could present this whole thing in reverse. I start with "calibration constants can change for a variety of reasons, leading to errors if 'old' constants are used post-change", then go to "Ed Storms' mass flow calorimetric data shows possible calibration constant shifts" if you like. General-to-specific is usually considered deductive reasoning.
All I *actually* did to find the problem is investigate the sensitivity of the results to experimental error, i.e. I determined that 1%RSD level changes in calibration constants wiped out a big excess heat signal. There's nothing fancier than that involved. in what I was doing. I did find the systematic trend which was surprising.
In the end reproducibility will answer the question. But it will be very difficult to attain reproducibility (which implies control of all relevant variables) when the experimentation is driven by the idea that the FPHE arises from a nuclear process if that is not true. In fact, the failure to reach a reproducible condition after many years of effort is a weak-to-moderate argument against the supposed nuclear nature.
Assuming there's no E-Cat or IH-Cat on the horizon, I think LENR research will flourish or founder on whether someone is able to come up with a reproducible experiment that can be examined under different conditions and controls, which will allow identification of the mechanism (whatever it is). So I agree with your sentiment about reproducibility. Whether the current difficult-to-reproduce situation is a contraindication of a nuclear mechanism is more debatable.
I think you might find this paper of interest. One (at least) of the authors is a member of this forum - and occasional visitor.
Oscillatory Behaviour and Anomalous Heat Evolution in Recombination of H2 and O2 on Pd-based Catalysts
Gas flow-through microcalorimetry has been applied to study the Pd/Al2O3 type catalysts in the exothermic hydrogen recombination process: H2 + O2 → H2O, in view of the potential application in the passive autocatalytic recombination (PAR) technology. The flow mode experiments revealed thermokinetic oscillations, i.e., the oscillatory rate of heat evolution accompanying the process and the corresponding oscillations in the differential heat of process, in sync with oscillatory conversion of hydrogen. .....
MICROSCAL FMC gas flow-through microcalorimeter
Groszek Aleksander Jerzy
...transferring the reaction running in volume phase (3D) into a reaction running at surface (2D). It's evident, if we would convert the same reaction to 1D, it would run even faster - and this is just what the palladium does for nuclear reactions.
If we look at the metal lattice, their long lines of atoms could behave like the pistons - especially these ones along boundaries of crystal grains and similar defects. In addition, the energy of collisions along lines of colliding balls has a tendency to multiply - it's nicely demonstrated for example here. Therefore locally the energy of these attenuated low-dimensional collisions can reach the levels required for fusion.
Yes, that demonstration of how one particle in a simple momentum transfer generates 800% more energy than "ordinary chemical energy of collisions" is a good demonstration of 1D effects. I also like how she brought it around to Supernovas, which in recent discussions there is a push for the existence of Bosenovas in LENR.
In 1D, atoms become liquid at much higher temperature, as demonstrated in Luttinger Liquids. And one dimensional BECs could be forming at these much higher temperatures.
All of this I have discussed in my hypothesis of the V1DLLBEC -- Vibrating 1 Dimensional Luttinger Liquid Bose Einstein Condensate.
Let's go through this once more,
Some of the best scientists looked at your hypothesis and determined it is wrong. Eric Walker said that you should generate some empirical data to back up your claim. The hypothetical case you bring up is that instead of multiplying by 3 and adding 0.7 it appears the empirical case is more like multiplying by 3.1 and adding 0.66. Would you be shouting so loudly if that were the case? (I know, no one ever addresses a hypothetical. Just consider it to be one of the many unanswered questions you leave on the table, right alongside the other researchers' unanswered questions.)
The many excess heat experiments are empirical evidence of something anomalous.
How many? This thread was started with 153 peer reviewed excess heat replications. Jed said later on that there were 180 labs with results. Where does an ordinary scientist begin his inquiry, with those "first 100 or so replications done by a who's who of electrochemistry"? Or is it with essentially zero replications as proposed by the hyperskeptics?
QuoteThe idea that some unusual surface condition in electrodes could make a reaction happen that normally does not....
QuoteI think that this is commonly referred to as 'catalysis'.
Well, I'm no chemist but I did take chemistry classes. The usual definition of catalysis is the acceleration (increasing the rate) of *existing* reactions, not making reactions possible which "normally are not". The increase may be so extreme as to make it seem that way (making the reaction possible) but catalysts won't work unless the reaction is possible to start with.
I have no argument with your definition of catalysis, Mary. Depending in its 'rate constant' a catalyst can increase the rate of a reaction from almost zero to 'considerable'. Under certain circumstances this can mean making a reaction 'not normally considered possible' in that the rate is so slow that detection reaction products is very difficult or in some systems impossible, into one that is 'moderate to vigorous'. I agree with you btw, you are no chemist.
I have no argument with your definition of catalysis, Mary. Depending in its 'rate constant' a catalyst can increase the rate of a reaction from almost zero to 'considerable'. Under certain circumstances this can mean making a reaction 'not normally considered possible' in that the rate is so slow that detection reaction products is very difficult or in some systems impossible, into one that is 'moderate to vigorous'. I agree with you btw, you are no chemist.
Chemical catalysis is well understood, and the reasons for it - adjacent atoms will skew quantum orbitals and can make electron transitions otherwise unlikely likely.
Nuclear catalysis from some chemical structure) is unexpected because the things specific to a chemical structure - electron orbitals etc - are way different in length scale from what is needed to affect nuclear forces and therefore not likely to have a large affect on nuclear reaction rates (though electric fields do have some affect, for obvious reasons, especially very strong ones). But going from stable, to noticeable fusion reaction, is a good deal more than just some effect.
But going from stable, to noticeable fusion reaction, is a good deal more than just some effect.
I think this is one of several reasons that it is critically important to disentangle claims of fusion from LENR empirical reports. The latter are measurements that are reported, and the former are high-level conclusions derived from those measurements on the basis of often contradictory evidence.
Well, it seems you have made a decision. Just one thing...
right alongside the other researchers' unanswered questions
which questions would those be?
Over on a different thread, Jed says that the LENR effect has been replicated 17,000 times.
The Real Roger Barker wrote:
So tell me Jed, why were they not able to validate the Pons Fleichmann effect on a regular basis?
Jed Rothwell: They did validate Fleischmann Pons on a regular basis. Roughly 17,000 times according to a grad student at the Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, at 180 labs according to Ed Storms. (Not me. I didn't count 'em.)
They are not replicating on a regular basis now because they are dead. Of old age.
The Real Roger Barker wrote:
17,000 times?! That would mean we should all be powering our homes with palladium based fusion reactors in our basements. We know this is not happening so someone got something wrong here.
Jed Rothwell: You misunderstand. That is a tally of positive experimental runs. Those were mainly small devices. In some cases, they were run 100 at a time, in a 10 x 10 array, or 16 at a time. None of those devices is working at the moment as far as I know. Most were consumed in destructive testing.
ADD: Plus, as I recall from the paper, the tally included multiple test runs for the same device (same cathode) in some cases.
The paper is: He, J., Nuclear fusion inside condense matters. Front. Phys. China, 2007. 1: p. 96-102., Table 1. That's HE Jing-tang, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, but I think a grad student compiled the table. I did not study it carefully but it looks like it is in the ballpark.
The paper is: He, J., Nuclear fusion inside condense matters. Front. Phys. China, 2007. 1: p. 96-102., Table 1. That's HE Jing-tang, Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, but I think a grad student compiled the table. I did not study it carefully but it looks like it is in the ballpark.
So I looked this up. It's listed in the lenr-canr database but has no downloadable version. You can find it at the journal's Web site here:
https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11467-007-0005-8 BTW, the correct ref is: Front. Phys. China, 2(1), 2007, 96-102 since the paper is in issue 1 of volume 2 (Jed has this wrong in his database).
It shows a two-page preview and wants ~$40 to buy a copy. After looking at the two pages, I don't think I'll buy it.
It is listed as a review article but has only 9 references, but the first 5 are not directly relevant to PF CF claims. Ref 1 is to a Physics Today short article (news item) on the DOE 2004 review, but He speaks of the 1989 review and references this article. The article says nothing specific about the 1989 review conclusions, especially regarding funding, and in fact gets what the 1989 conclusions said wrong. Ref 2 is the Hagelstein, et al paper presented at the 2004 DOE review. Ref 3 is supposedly to Brian Josephson's web diatribe on pathological disbelief, but the Web link given doesn't take you directly there. Refs 4 and 5 are to Steve Jones' work, which is 'the other side' of the CF controversy, not related to PF CF. Ref 6 and 7 refer to work on deuteron beams impinging on TiD, again not PF CF. Ref 8 and 9 refer to Arata and Zhang's work, which is PF CF, but with a unique hollow cathode filled with Pd black. I have looked at this work previously and concluded it is fully consistent with ATER/CCS. 9 references doesn't make a very good review. Apparently they are counting the Hagelstein paper as the core (which as I recall also references Storms' book, which does list as many papers as he could find, no quality control applied to them though).
Notably missing from this 2007 paper is any mention of my work (from 2002, 2005, 2006). This is relevant because they state in the Intro that F&P could not attribute their excess energy findings to any chemical processes, thereby implicitly agreeing with that statement, since no qualifying remarks are made. Of course, that's what my work does, offer a chemical method to get the apparent excess heat signals.
They also misstate the conclusions of both DOE reviews as 'don't fund CF' (paraphrase) when in fact the conclusions were that good proposals could be funded if desired (as is actually stated in the Physic Today news item (ref 1)).
They imply high reproducibility if D/Pd=.88 or better is required, which is not extensively substantiated in the literature. This is McKubre's claim, but it has not been tested well.
They claim 100% reproducibility in some countries, but use ref 3 to back this up. As noted, the link given is not directly to the needed info, and I didn't spend any time hunting for it. The idea that some *countries* get 100% 'reproducibility' is a red herring. Physical location in the world shouldn't be a factor here...
The rest of the second page is taken up with two of McKubre's favorite figures, which really don't prove much in the end.
Given the poor quality of the paper's first two pages, I'm not paying for the rest.
How many? This thread was started with 153 peer reviewed excess heat replications. Jed said later on that there were 180 labs with results. Where does an ordinary scientist begin his inquiry, with those "first 100 or so replications done by a who's who of electrochemistry"? Or is it with essentially zero replications as proposed by the hyperskeptics?
Do not mix up apples and oranges. These are different tallies of different things.
Storms listed 180 labs in Table 2 of his first book. That is the number of labs that replicated excess heat. The number that replicated tritium and other effects are listed in other tables. Some labs replicated both heat and tritium. There were actually more than 180 labs, but Storms did not include them all in his database. 180 is enough to be sure, in any case. Five would be enough, in my opinion.
The number of experimental runs greatly exceeds the number of labs, because some labs run hundreds or thousands of tests, typically in an array.
Not all of these labs published papers in peer-reviewed journals. On the other hand, some published more than one paper. I list most of the peer-reviewed papers that are mainly about heat here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
This is a tally by D. Britz, not me.
Regarding the "essentially zero replications as proposed by the hyperskeptics" that has no basis in realty. Anyone can go to an academic library at a university and find hundreds of papers describing replications of cold fusion. If you want to argue that every single one of these replications was a mistake, you are arguing that the experimental method of science does not work. If that were true, we humans would still be living in caves. Some number of experiments are likely to be wrong, because people make mistakes. But people do not always make mistakes, day after day, year after year. Nothing would work if they did. When you get enough positive replications, done by a large number of people, the likelihood that every one of them is wrong is roughly comparable to the likelihood that today 1,000 electrochemists will simultaneously lose control of their cars and crash into telephone poles.
